ABSTRACT
Cardiogenic shock represents one of the most dramatic scenarios to deal with in intensive cardiology care and is burdened by substantial short-term mortality. An integrated approach, including timely diagnosis and phenotyping, along with a well-established shock team and management protocol, may improve survival. The use of the Swan-Ganz catheter could play a pivotal role in various phases of cardiogenic shock management, encompassing diagnosis and haemodynamic characterisation to treatment selection, titration and weaning. Moreover, it is essential in the evaluation of patients who might be candidates for long-term heart-replacement strategies. This review provides a historical background on the use of the Swan-Ganz catheter in the intensive care unit and an analysis of the available evidence in terms of potential prognostic implications in this setting.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) monitoring on survival of cardiogenic shock(CS), in the light of the controversies in available evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library and Web of Science were systematically screened to identify most relevant studies on patients with CS comparing PAC use to non-use during hospital stay. Short-term mortality was the primary endpoint and the use of Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS) devices was the secondary one. RESULTS: Six observational studies including 1,166,762 patients were selected. The most frequent etiology of CS was post-myocardial infarction (75% [95% CI 55-89%] in PAC-group and 81%[95% CI 47-95%] in non-PAC group). Overall, PAC was used in 33%(95% CI 24-44%) of cases. Pooling data adjusted for confounders, a significant association between the PAC-group and a reduction in short-term mortality emerged when compared to the non-PAC group (36%[95% CI 27-45%] vs 47%[95% CI 35-59%];AdjustedOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.87, p < 0.01). MCS use was significantly higher in PAC vs non-PAC group (59% [95% CI 54-65%]) vs 48% [95% CI 43-53%]);OR 1.60 [95% CI 1.27-2.02, p < 0.01]). CONCLUSIONS: PAC was associated with lower incidence of short-term mortality in CS pooling adjusted observational studies. Prospective studies are needed to confirm our hypothesis and better clarify the mechanisms of this potential prognostic benefit.
Subject(s)
Pulmonary Artery , Shock, Cardiogenic , Catheterization, Swan-Ganz , Catheters , Humans , Prognosis , Shock, Cardiogenic/therapyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The impact of Impella and ECMO (ECPELLA) in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains to be defined. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the benefit of ECPELLA compared to VA-ECMO in patients with non post-pericardiotomy CS. METHODS: All studies reporting short term outcomes of ECpella or VA ECMO in non post-pericardiotomy CS were included. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Vascular and bleeding complications and LVAD implantation/heart transplant within 30-days were assessed as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 407 studies identified, 13 observational studies (13,682 patients, 13,270 with ECMO and 412 with ECpella) were included in this analysis. 30-day mortality was 55.8% (51.6-59.9) in the VA-ECMO group and 58.3% (53.5-63.0) in the ECpella group. At meta-regression analysis the implantation of IABP did not affect mortality in the ECMO group. The rate of major bleeding in patients on VA-ECMO and ECpella support were 21.3% (16.9-26.5) and 33.1% (25.9-41.2) respectively, while the rates of the composite outcome of LVAD implantation and heart transplantation within 30-days in patients on VA-ECMO and ECpella support were 14.4% (9.0-22.2) and 10.8%. When directly compared in 3 studies, ECpella showed a positive effect on 30-day mortality compared to ECMO (OR: 1.81: 1.039-3.159). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that ECpella may reduce 30-day mortality and increase left ventricle recovery, despite increased of bleeding rates.